Patrick Bisenius

I'll research this attorney before drafting the summary.

Let me gather more specifics on his background and the tracked cases.

Patrick (Rick) Bisenius — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Specialty / focus. Bisenius's practice centers on patent post-grant proceedings (IPR, PGR, CBM) and reexamination, together with U.S. and foreign patent portfolio strategy and due-diligence work. Fish & Richardson's own announcement describes his technical experience across telecommunications, telephony, communications systems and hardware, software, navigation systems, electro-mechanical devices, bio-medical devices, microchip design, and consumer products. His tracked district-court appearances are in aerial-imagery/geospatial roof-measurement technology (Nearmap US, Inc. v. Eagle View Technologies, Inc.); his PTAB docket extends to Wi-Fi and wireless standards (Quectel, Juniper/Verizon, Dish Network v. Entropic), health-monitoring wearables (Apple v. Masimo, AliveCor v. Apple), and supply-chain analytics software (Kinaxis v. Blue Yonder), i.e., a software/communications/electronics emphasis rather than pharma or mechanical arts.

Side preference. He works both sides. The tracked docket is evenly split (2 plaintiff-side, 2 defendant-side), and his PTAB record confirms this: he has appeared for petitioners (e.g., Google, Kinaxis, Juniper) and for patent owners (e.g., Apple against Masimo/AliveCor). Fish & Richardson's 2020 principal announcement states he "has represented both petitioners and patent owners in over 60 inter partes review, CBM review, and reexamination proceedings." His tracked district-court roles are consistently supporting (back-up counsel, team member, additional counsel) rather than first-chair.

Firm context. Entirely Fish & Richardson P.C., where he works out of the Minneapolis office and was elevated to principal in February 2020 (Martindale lists him as a partner at the firm). No prior firm history surfaced in the searches; his entire patent litigation/post-grant career appears to have been at Fish.

Notable cases / outcomes. The most prominent tracked matter is the Nearmap/EagleView aerial-imagery dispute (D. Utah, Case No. 2:21-cv-00283), in which Nearmap filed a series of IPRs against Eagle View/Pictometry patents; the district case was stayed in August 2025 pending the PTO and Federal Circuit proceedings. In Eagle View Technologies, Inc. v. Nearmap US, Inc., No. 24-1488, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's decision in the underlying IPR (declining to read an accuracy requirement into "calculate"/"determine"). His PTAB work also includes the Apple v. Masimo and AliveCor v. Apple IPR families, Kinaxis v. Blue Yonder (IPR2021-01318, where he presented at the oral hearing for petitioner), and Google v. [traffic-forecasting patent] matters reported in Law360 (2018), as well as PTAB wins reported in Law360 for Apple/Google/Samsung mapping patents (2016) and Google/Samsung graphics patents (2015). Note: the tracked case list and the Federal Circuit opinion do not themselves confirm his individual role in the appeal, so that attribution is inferred from the case family rather than stated in a source.

PTAB / IPR experience. This is a core part of his practice — he appears regularly as counsel in IPR/PGR proceedings, has presented argument before the Board (e.g., IPR2021-01318), and has handled petitioner-side and patent-owner-side matters. His registered practitioner number appears in numerous powers of attorney and mandatory notices across Fish's PTAB docket.

Bar / education. Admitted Illinois (2013) and Minnesota (2014); Reg. No. 63,893. J.D., with honors, University of Chicago Law School (2013); B.S. in electrical and computer engineering and computer science, University of Wisconsin (2001).